Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus, Eliades & Phimmachak & Sivongxay & Siler & Stuart, 2019

Eliades, Samuel J., Phimmachak, Somphouthone, Sivongxay, Niane, Siler, Cameron D. & Stuart, Bryan L., 2019, Two new species of Hemiphyllodactylus (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) from Laos, Zootaxa 4577 (1), pp. 131-147 : 138-139

Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus sp. nov.

( Figures 3 , 4 A–C)

Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 8 Grismer, Wood, Anuar, Quah, Muin, Chan, Sumarli, & Loredo 2015:863.

Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 9 Grismer, Wood, Anuar, Muin, Quah, McGuire, Brown, Ngo, & Pham 2013:852; Grismer, Riyanto, Iskandar, & McGuire 2014:490; Grismer, Wood, & Cota 2014:69; Ngo, Grismer, Pham, & Wood 2014:541; Nguyen, Botov, Le, Nophaseud, Zug, Bonkowski, & Ziegler 2014:46; Yan, Lin, Guo, Li, & Zhou 2016:544; Grismer, Wood, Thura, Zin, Quah, Murdoch, Grismer, Li, Kyaw, & Lwin 2017:6; Sukprasert, Sutthiwises, Lauhachinda, & Taksintum 2018:365.

Hemiphyllodactylus cf. yunnanensis Nguyen, Lehmann, Le, Duong, Bonkowski, & Ziegler 2013 :91.

Holotype. FMNH 258695 (field number HKV 63933), adult male, Bolaven Plateau , Dong Hua Sao National Protected Area, Pakxong District, Champasak Province, Laos, 15.07694°N, 106.13750°E, WGS84 ( Fig. 1A ), ca. 1,000 m elev., collected 13 September 1999 by BLS, Harold F. Heatwole, and Bee Thaovanseng.

Diagnosis. Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus sp. nov. can be distinguished from all congeners by having the following combination of characters: supralabials 15; infralabials 12; precloacofemoral pores 18 in males (females unknown); subdigital lamellae on Fingers II–V 4-5-5-4; total lamellae on hand 18; subdigital lamellae on Toes II– V 4-5 -5-5; total lamellae on foot 19; dorsal scales across midbody within one orbital diameter 30; ventral scales across midbody within one orbital diameter 11; cloacal spurs two; chin scales eight; and internasal scales three.

Description of holotype. Adult male; head triangular in dorsal profile, distinct from neck (HeadL 9.7 mm; HeadW 7.4 mm; HeadD 3.9 mm); rostrum long (NarEye 3.0 mm; NarEye/HeadL 31%); prefrontal region slightly concave; canthus rostralis smooth, rounded; snout long (SnEye 3.8 mm; SnEye/HeadL 39%), narrow (SnW 1.6 mm), rounded in dorsal profile; eye large (OrbD 2.4 mm); ear small, ovoid (EarL 0.7 mm); EyeEar greater than orbital diameter (EyeEar 3.3 mm; EyeEar/OrbD 138%); rostral scale wider than high, bordered posteriorly by two large supranasals and three internasals (Internas); nares bordered anteriorly by rostral scale, ventrally by first supralabial, dorsally by supranasal, posteriorly by two postnasals (CircNa); supralabials square, 15/15 (left/right), tapering from rostral to a point in line with posterior margin of orbit (Suplab); infralabials square, 12/12, tapering from mental to a point in line with posterior margin of orbit (Inflab); scales on head small, rounded, largest on rostrum; superciliaries unequally sized, imbricate; mental triangular, bordered by first infralabials and posteriorly by two large postmentals; each postmental bordered anterolaterally by first infralabial; eight chin scales touching infralabials and mental (Chin); scales in gular region rounded, non-overlapping, becoming larger and more ovoid on venter.

Body small, elongate (SVL 39.8 mm; TrunkL 20.2 mm), widest at midbody; ventrolateral fold absent; dorsal body scales small, granular, scales within one orbital diameter 30 (Dorsal); tubercles absent (Tub); ventral body scales smooth, somewhat rounded, subimbricate, scales within one orbital diameter 11 (Ventral); enlarged precloacal and femoral scales 20; continuous precloacofemoral pore series 18 (Pore); precloacal groove absent; fore-limbs relatively short (ForeL 4.0 mm), covered dorsally with granular, subimbricate scales, smaller smooth scales ventrally; palmar scales flat, unevenly shaped, non-overlapping; Finger I vestigial, clawless, subdigital lamellae rectangular, four (IFingLm); Fingers II–V well-developed; proximal subdigital lamellae undivided, rectangular; distal subdigital lamellae divided, angular, U-shaped, except terminal lamellae rounded, undivided; lamellar formula on Fingers II–V 4-5-5-4 on left hand, 3-5-5-4 on right hand (II–VFingLm), total lamellae on hand 18 (TotFingLm); claws on Fingers II–V well-developed, unsheathed, strongly curved; hind limbs short (CrusL 5.1 mm), covered dorsally with granular, subimbricate, unevenly sized scales, covered ventrally with smooth scales, larger than dorsal scales; plantar scales small, smooth; Toe I vestigial, clawless, subdigital lamellae rectangular, five (IToeLm); Toes II–V well-developed; proximal subdigital lamellae undivided, rectangular; distal lamellae divided, angular, and U-shaped except terminal lamellae rounded, undivided; lamellar formula on Toes II–V 4-5-5-5 on both feet (II–VToeLm), total lamellae on foot 19 (TotToeLm); cloacal spurs two (CloacS); tail short, round in cross-section, partially regenerated (TailL 27.1 mm), narrow (TailW 2.7 mm); dorsal scales on tail larger than on body and head, smaller than subcaudals, subcaudals large, flat, imbricate.

Coloration in preservative. Dorsal surfaces of head and body Raw Sienna (Color 32), mottled with light patches of Pale Buff (Color 1) and dark patches of Dusky Brown (Color 285). Faint postorbital stripe of Light Buff (Color 2). Dorsal surface of tail fades posteriorly from Pale Pinkish Buff (Color 3) to Drab Gray (Color 256). Triangular marking at base of dorsal surface of tail Vandyke Brown (Color 282), outlined posteriorly in Pale Pinkish Buff (Color 3). Ventral surfaces of head and body Pale Buff (Color 1) in gular region, fading posteriorly to Light Buff (Color 2) near vent, with Tawny Olive (Color 17) speckling. Ventral surface of original portion of tail Pale Buff (Color 1) with speckling of Raw Sienna (Color 32) and Vandyke Brown (Color 282). Ventral surface of regenerated portion of tail Raw Sienna (Color 32), fading to Drab Gray (Color 256) posteriorly ( Figs. 3 , 4 A–C).

Distribution and natural history. Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus sp. nov. is known only from the holotype that was collected approximately 1 m above the ground inside of a vertical palm tree in wet evergreen forest during the morning ( Fig. 1B ). It is currently unknown as to whether this species occurs beyond the type locality in Dong Hua Sao National Protected Area. Additional surveys for the species in the vicinity of the type locality were conducted during 28 July–4 August 2010 by BLS and NS, and during 24–28 July 2018 by SP, but failed to yield additional specimens. The species probably persists at the type locality but is either uncommon or difficult to sample.

Etymology. The specific epithet is taken from the Latin indus for belonging to India, and sobrinus for maternal cousin, in reference to its close relationship, along with H. flaviventris , in maternally-inherited mitochondrial sequence data to the Indian endemic H. aurantiacus ( Fig. 2 ; Grismer et al. 2013, 2014a, b, 2015, 2017; Nguyen et al. 2013, 2014; Ngo et al. 2014; Yan et al. 2016; Sukprasert et al. 2018).

Comparisons. Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus sp. nov. can be differentiated from all other congeners in mainland Southeast Asia and southern China by a combination of the following characters: chin scales eight (versus ± 10 in H. aurantiacus and Ĺ 6 in H. linnwayensis Grismer, Wood, Thura, Zin, Quah, Murdoch, Grismer, Li, Kyaw, & Lwin, 2017 ); postmentals distinctly enlarged (versus not enlarged in H. aurantiacus ); circumnasal scales three (versus ± 4 in H. flaviventris , H. khlonglanensis Sukprasert, Sutthiwises, Lauhachinda, & Taksintum, 2018 , H. kiziriani , and H. linnwayensis ); supralabial scales 15 [versus Ĺ 13 in H. aurantiacus , H. banaensis , H. changningensis Guo, Zhou, Yan, & Li, 2015 , H. chiangmaiensis Grismer, Wood, & Cota, 2014 , H. dushanensis ( Zhou & Liu, 1981) , H. flaviventris , H. huishuiensis Yan, Lin, Guo, Li, & Zhou, 2016 , H. jinpingensis ( Zhou & Liu, 1981) , H. khlonglanensis , H. kiziriani , H. linnwayensis , H. longlingensis ( Zhou & Liu, 1981) , H. montawaensis Grismer, Wood, Thura, Zin, Quah, Murdoch, Grismer, Li, Kyaw, & Lwin, 2017 , H. tonywhitteni Grismer, Wood, Thura, Zin, Quah, Murdoch, Grismer, Li, Kyaw, & Lwin, 2017 , H. yunnanensis , and H. zugi Nguyen, Lehmann, Le, Duong, Bonkowski, Ziegler, 2013 ]; infralabial scales 12 (versus Ĺ 10 in H. changningensis , H. linnwayensis , H. montawaensis , and H. tonywhitteni ); dorsal scales within one orbital diameter 30 (versus Ĺ 27 in H. aurantiacus , H. banaensis , H. changningensis , H. chiangmaiensis , H. flaviventris , H. huishuiensis , H. khlonglanensis , H. kiziriani , H. linnwayensis , H. montawaensis , H. tonywhitteni , H. yunnanensis , and H. zugi ); ventral scales within one orbital diameter 11 (versus Ĺ 9 in H. changningensis , H. huishuiensis , H. linnwayensis , H. montawaensis , H. tonywhitteni , and 14–16 in H. zugi ); total lamellae on hand 18 (versus Ĺ 16 in H. aurantiacus , H. changningensis , H. chiangmaiensis , H. dushanensis , H. flaviventris , H. jinpingensis , H. khlonglanensis , H. kiziriani , H. linnwayensis , H. longlingensis , H. montawaensis , H. yunnanensis , and H. zugi ); total lamellae on foot 19 (versus Ĺ 16 in H. aurantiacus , H. changningensis , H. chiangmaiensis , H. khlonglanensis , H. longlingensis , and H. yunnanensis ); subdigital lamellae on Finger I four (versus three in H. huishuiensis , H. tonywhitteni and ± 5 in H. banaensis , H. dushanensis , H. flaviventris , H. jinpingensis , H. khlonglanensis , H. kiziriani , and H. longlingensis ); subdigital lamellae on Toe I five (versus Ĺ 4 in H. changningensis , H. chiangmaiensis , H. huishuiensis , H. montawaensis , H. tonywhitteni , and seven in H. dushanensis ); and continuous precloacofemoral pores 18 (versus ± 20 in H. dushanensis , H. jinpingensis , H. tonywhitteni , and Ĺ 13 in H. flaviventris , H. kiziriani ).

Figures

FIGURE 1. (A) Map showing the type localities of Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus sp. nov. in Pakxong District, Champasak Province, Laos (circle) and Hemiphyllodactylus serpispecus sp. nov. in Viengxay District, Houaphanh Province, Laos (star). (B) Habitat at the type locality of H. indosobrinus sp. nov. and (C) habitat at the type locality of H. serpispecus sp. nov.

FIGURE 2. Maximum clade credibility topology resulting from Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial DNA (ND2 coding region, flanking tRNAs, and part of the COI coding region) from Hemiphyllodactylus geckos. Hemidactylus frenatus (GenBank accession GQ245970) and Gehyra variegata (GenBank accession AY369026) were used as outgroups (not shown). Black circles at nodes indicate Bayesian posterior probabilities ±0.99, and open circles at nodes indicate Bayesian posterior probabilities ±0.95. Nodes without circles represent support values <0.95. GenBank accession numbers are included at branch tips.

FIGURE 3. (A) Dorsal and (B) ventral views of the preserved holotype male (FMNH 258695) of Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus sp. nov.. Ventral surface of (C) left hand and (D) left foot. (E) Ventral view of pubis and hind limbs showing pore series. Scale bars equal 2 mm.

FIGURE 4. (A) Dorsal, (B) ventral, and (C) lateral view of head of the preserved holotype male (FMNH 258695) of Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus sp. nov.. (D) Dorsal, (E) ventral, and (F) lateral view of the head of the preserved holotype male (NUOL 00476) of Hemiphyllodactylus serpispecus sp. nov.. Scale bars equal 2 mm.